Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of The Federalist and
David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. Just as
a reminder, if you'd like to email the show, please
do so at radio at the Federalist dot com. We'd
love to hear from you. Hi, Molly, Hey David.
Speaker 2: How are you doing.
Speaker 1: I'm doing well. Lots of cover, lots of cover this week.
Did you have a nice Easter?
Speaker 2: Wonderful Easter. It's always like the top day of the year.
Kids had fun. I suggested that their Easter egg baskets
include less candy and more other stuff, and they reminded
me that they'd given up candy for lent and that
they wanted a huge basket of candy, so didn't. I
also stumped one of the kids on where I hid
the basket, which is like my big goal each year.
Speaker 1: Did you see the Easter roll celebrations at the White House?
Speaker 2: We didn't go. We didn't go this year, but we've
been previously and I thought it was I just want
to say the Easter bunnies at the White House have
always scared me. Many of the of the mascot easter
bunnies that you see like at the mall or elsewhere
are terrifying, and this was the White House one was
always bad too. But they got new Easter bunnies and
they're very cute, so I'm very happy about that. Did
you see President Trump getting really into coloring with the kids.
Speaker 1: No. I did see him say something like, do you
remember when the last Easter bunny, you know, lead crazy
Joe out of the White House or whatever. He's like,
no one leads Trump. No easter bunny is going to
lead Trump out of the White House.
Speaker 2: Well, I didn't see that. I forgot that about our
previous president. But there's a coloring table, there are all
sorts of activities for very young kids at the Easter
egg role. It's a very fun thing to take your
kids too. And it's also fun because you see people
that you know professionally, but they're there with they're chasing
their own children. And that always is a like a
like a beautifully humbling experience to see people managing their
own flock of kids. But there's this coloring table and
President Trump sat down and he was so intently coloring
with the kids who were also very intent about coloring,
and it just there's some I don't know what it is,
but I sometimes when I'm coloring with kids, I also
get very into it, you know, and I'm very like,
let me focus here while I keep my colors in
the lines and everything. And I find it kind of soothing,
you know, like jumping on a trampoline or something. It's
just kind of soothing.
Speaker 1: And I have seen you jump on a trampoline. And
also I just want to say I love coloring. I
love coloring. You know they have the adult coloring books now, Yeah,
very intricate kind of designs that you can color in. Yeah,
it's so much fun, and you really, I don't know,
you get intense about it. You stay in the lines,
you finish.
Speaker 2: Okay. So yesterday I was at the Museum of Modern
Art in New York City. And I'm not a big
modern art fan, but there are certain artists who I
do like, and they have a ton of Piet Mandrian
and I was looking at it and looking at various
pieces and I thought, I know he's Dutch or whatever,
but he's like a visual representation of what it's like
to be German. Like there is such order and balance,
and it again makes everything feel like it's in its
place when you see his bright colors and paintings.
Speaker 1: Anyway, it's funny. I love MoMA is great, and I
love modern art for the most part, not not the
like when they pile up one hundred bagels to the
sky kind of installation art, but just abstract expressionist art.
And I don't like him because it is so orderly.
I like it a bit messy and exciting.
Speaker 2: So my problem with modern art is that it it
is frequently ugly and chaotic and disorderly and rejects the
understanding of truth and beauty and causes all sorts of
or relates to or causes or is the result of
a breakdown in people's understanding of what's true and good frequently,
not all the time. I mean, there are some great,
great artists, and I also reject like who they put
in with some of these like Cimone next to like
a pile of vomit, and it's like, well, that's not
these are not the same.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's sometimes this fine balance between just laughing at
what you're looking at and thinking that it's cool, you know.
But I am open to more modern art and I
don't think about it as deeply as that. You know,
I understand what you're saying, you know what I mean,
but I don't take it that seriously. I just sometimes
I wish people just look at something and say, wow,
that's pretty cool, you know, and then move on to
the next thing and say that. You know. But since
we're talking about Easter, we should talk about Pope Francis,
who passed away on Monday. He had not been well
for a while. I think, you know, this is not
completely unexpected. Obviously, I don't have much to say about
Pope Francis. Think you look, you know, he seemed like
a nice and decent person, and when he got involved
in politics, I would say something, But as far as
theological things go, that's not really my business to to
to get involved. Though. I have to tell you I
saw the funniest tweet from someone who said that he
hoped that Trump is all like one of these big accounts.
He hope that Trump would get involved here so that
we didn't have another globalist Catholic Pope Catholic, which seems
weird to say to the meaning universal exactly all bracing. Yeah,
But anyway, so I was said to see him going,
I'm do you get into the whole uh uh, you know,
College of Cardinals or whatever it's called, the election, all
of that the smoke.
Speaker 2: Yes. So, as we frequently discuss, I'm Lutheran, and Lutherans
are different than a lot of non Roman Catholic Christians
in that we never sought to leave the church. We were,
we were kicked out, and we so we have these
very We care a lot about what happens in Rome
in the way that you would if you're you know,
care about your own family if they kicked you out
of your family. And we the Reformation was intended to
reform the church to the and restore the teaching of
the Gospel, as opposed to like we're out of here
and we're starting a new church, and so we also
there's a saying about when the pope's sneezes, the rest
of the church catches a cold, like you want a
good pope because it affects the entire church. And I'm
not one of these like reflexive haters of Francis. I
think he had some good things, like at his best
he cared deeply about mercy. It was weird to me
and to many of my friends who are Roman Catholic
about how he didn't seem to extend that same charity
to Conservative Catholics, and he was sometimes quite like brutal
and harsh with them about saying they weren't allowed to
worship according to the traditional Latin Mass, which was a
big thing in the United States and had brought a
lot of people into the Church of a certain type
of person too, and he was kind of like cruel
to those people. So I don't want to downplay that.
But and then he just was not a theological giant.
He was a Jesuit. They're not really known for understanding
like scripture, tradition of the church. It showed in his
case was more political. He was not like a Benedict,
who was one of the greatest theologians I think in
the church of that time, wrote beautifully about the centrality
of Christ to the church. And then John Paul two
was also like a giant really too. We had two
popes that were so different than the historic norm of
potpoury where they poke. Jon Paul the second really brought
into like a modern way the way that the church
had had frequently the Roman Catholic Church had frequently been,
you know, just as much a political creature as a
religious vehicle. You see that when you go to the
Vatican Museum, you see all these like it's like any
other empire museum. You know, here are the things that
we that we got through control of a large part
of the world, and here are some really pagan things
that you wouldn't think a church would be celebrating. But
PopEd on Paul the Second, with his unique understanding of
the evils of communism, played such a big and mighty
beautiful role in bringing down Communism, working with other world leaders,
and then you have Francis and so it was like
kind of a letdown, But if you were being honest,
more of the pattern of popes throughout the ages. So
I am praying, actually, I just I was talking to
a Roman Catholic priest yesterday who was about to go
on Fox, and you know, I was like, I'm Lutheran,
but I really pray that you guys get a wonderful
pope because it affects the whole church. So I pray
that the Cardinals do a good job picking someone, and
that they more than anything, that they don't do a
bad job, because there are a lot of bad options
or bad directions the church, the Roman Church could go,
and I don't want it to go in those directions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I should say I'm interested in the
conclave and all that goes on, but I also I
want to pope that Again, just from an outsider view,
I'm a big fan of Orthodoxy and and religious tradition,
and I hope that the more we strengthen that, the
better I think it is for Western society, especially considering
all the forces of the bad parts of secularism and
sorry Islamist you know, ideas. So I'm all for that.
I also, you know, I agree with the things you said.
I read. Again, I'm not an expert, but I read.
I'm a fan of archbishops Chapooh and he wrote something
on this, and it was it was somewhat critical, you know,
about the lack of precision of language. I guess that
the Pope Parentsis used which would confuse people or give
them the wrong idea about certain aspects of Catholicism. And
in a selfish way, I you know, I want them
to be Orthodox because I oppose abortion. I want the
Catholic Church to be stronger on that. I have certain
ideas about society, and I want them as allies. I
don't know if you saw the Wall Street Journal had
a piece last week about how people are returning to
the Catholic Church or converting, like there's there's actually an
uptick here in the United States, but there being enticed
by the Orthodoxy. They like Latin mass they you know,
those sorts of things. So I for me, these kind
of especially in Judaism, which I do I think have
a right to speak about rather strongly, kind of watering
down the tradition, not just you know, the theological ideas,
but watering it down and letting letting secul ideas appropriate
the religion. I think it's just an off ramp and
then the people leave it. So it's the Orthodoxy I
think that often entices people. The structure, the moral structure, right.
So anyway, that's why I hope there's a more conservative Poe.
Speaker 2: I have a random question, but did you read Russy
Reno's Return of the Strong Gods? Have we talked about
that before?
Speaker 1: I'm not sure I didn't. It's a book.
Speaker 2: I would highly recommend you read it, David. You would
love it.
Speaker 1: It's going to be tough for me. To read, because
I am not a fan of his work in general.
Speaker 2: As far as you would be, you would love this book.
I'm almost positive. So it really talks about how the
first two World wars caused such a like breakdown in
people's trust in institutions that they rejected so many different
institutions and tried to create, you know, what was frequently
called an open society, so you know George Soros's quote
unquote charitable works or under the Open Society Fund, and
it's and how it wasn't just like they thought that
you could get rid of fascism through certain ways of
ordering society, but that they include, you know, a breakdown
of the family unit. And so it's kind of about
institutional wrought in all of its forms, and how the
return of the Strong Gods is kind of about how
you can't actually vanquish all of these things and that
they will make a return. I don't even know what
you wouldn't like about Rusty because I find First Things,
I really enjoy that publication, and I have enjoyed the
commentary that he has featured in First Things.
Speaker 1: But I mean his antagonism towards free markets, his antagonism
towards none, you know, secular governance in general. I mean,
I'm still a fan of letting people live under the
you know, the freedom. I think that the freedom allows
people to have better family life. I just, you know,
I think anyway, I don't want to get too far
into it, but those are the things that I don't
like about them.
Speaker 2: But I'm not sure if I totally agree that there
is even such a This is such a big conversation
that we should that I should not just be spouting
off about it. But I was thinking about it as
it relates to the Supreme Court case that was heard
earlier this week about the Maryland parents who wanted to
opt their children out from radical gender ideology and other
extreme teachings being foisted by their quote unquote secular government schools.
Speaker 1: Can I just quickly interject that, actually, I think proves
my point, even though people think it's the opposite. Okay,
there is a state religion, and that's what that those
public schools course parents to try to teach their kids.
It has nothing to do with learning, you know, I'm
saying about facts or the world or being a better citizen.
It is a secular faith that they because there's been
this vacuum. They've put the brainbow flag in there instead
of a cross or whatever, and giving power to the state. Yes,
sometimes you're going to use it for your benefit to
make people learn about whatever you want, but it's very
easy for that to go sideways. So for me, this
is why I believe in neutral principles that everyone kind
of laughs at these days, But I believe if you
have a state that allows people to teach their kids
whatever they want, send them schools they want, I think
that's better for people of faith, especially when faith is
in decline in general.
Speaker 2: Anyway, Sorry, yeah, agree, I just I think it might
be harder to the educational education is an inherently moral
act and that you will be teaching your kids' values,
and that it might be impossible to do it absent
that whatever system you use, it will be indoctrinating your kids.
So you choose whether you want them to be indoctrinated
by this radical gender ideology or whether, like what my
husband and I have done, making sure they're taught Christian
theology of the body, understanding that sex is a beautiful
gift from God and that you know you're made male
and female and that's a wonderful thing, and there are
certain biological realities like that's not going to happen in
a government school.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be government schools. I know that sounds like
a radical libertarian idea, but it's not. I just think
that that idea has passed us because there's just too
much of a division in society about what patriotism means
or what morality means, and that we should make it
as easy as possible for you to send your kids
to a school that teaches them what you want to
teach them. I mean, there should be some basic academic expectations.
And I love when people are a complain about how,
you know, vouchers allow you to send your kids to
schools where they're not going to learn the things they
need to learn. In my view, and I've written about
this forever, those schools always make sure your kids are
a lot more educated on the basics than a public school.
That's not to say all public schools are bad. Plenty
of them are fine. But yeah, so I mean that, Yeah,
that's a big topic. But there's no easy answer, you know,
but certainly, you know, saying we need to control these institutions,
it doesn't always work out that way, and then when
you build these powerful institutions, they get to control you sometimes.
So you mentioned the Supreme Court in this case, it
seemed like it was going well. I guess for I
wouldn't call it religious freedom but just educational freedom.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's interesting because it's technically a religious freedom case.
It was fed by a bunch of religious parents. It
was Christians and Muslims, and I think even Hindus who
had previously been allowed to opt their children out of
government school programs that taught radical gender ideology or like
just explicit sex stuff, and if they were five to
fourteen or something like that, you could opt them out.
But then they made it so that you couldn't opt out.
And so it's partly about religious freedom, but there are
these issues that even non religious parents should be able
to opt their children out from being taught that if
your mind tells you that you are what you believe
to be the opposite sex, then you are. I mean,
that's not necessarily just a religious issue. And then it's
also to me about just how bad government schools have gotten,
how much they're indoctrinating children, how radical they are, And
it was interesting in front of the Supreme Court. You
had a bunch of parents talking about what a violation
this is of their parental rights. But then you also
had people defending the forced inculcation of radical trans ideology
on children. I mean, they were dueling rallies, and it's
a reminder that there is a segment of the population
that very much seeks to, you know, force your kids
into this, even young kids, you know, young to the
age of five. Although I don't think it should be
accepted at any age, and I don't just mean any
age of children. I think everyone should reject trans ideology,
regardless of the age, regardless of whether you're an adult
man working at a think tank who has a sexual fetish,
or whether you're a child who's been you know, who's
susceptible to social media. Radical trans ideology is a major
problem that goes against what we should be teaching about
biological reality and the best way to be whatever sex
you were made.
Speaker 1: Certainly there's a and it's an issue social contagion. Obviously,
you know, no one you know this. You see the
graphs where people identify as another sex or whatever. You know,
it's just zooms forward at starting in the nineties and
so on. So I agree with you, but there I
do make a distinction between forcing you to teach your
kids this is okay and being an adult who makes
such a decision. You can still reject that that's a truth,
and I do, and you can say, you know, you're
an adult, do what you want. But I don't think
adults would be doing this if they hadn't been, or
many of them hadn't been, like you say, you know,
taught in schools that it's normal or okay to do.
And I have to say, I don't know, is this
a county thing or is it the state of Marilanda Montgomery.
It's Montgomery County, and I know something about that. And
it is horrifying how bad those schools are in that sense.
I mean, that's not that they won't teach you calculus,
well they will, but then they're going to teach you
something that's completely you know, a fantasy about sexuality or biology.
And it doesn't even I don't even think opting out
of a class is enough. I think it's just so
embedded in everything that goes on in these schools that
that people should be allowed to escape them. I mean,
we should be working to allow them to escape those schools,
and maybe they can't do that in Maryland, which is
so such a terrible state in general as far as
governance goes.
Speaker 3: The argument of Wall Street versus Main Street is a
pile of nonsense. The Watch Dout on Wall Street podcast
with Chris Markowski every day Chris helps unpack the connection
between politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet.
The stock market was all over the place due to
the expected tariffs, and guess what, Wall Street still made money.
Mom and pop stores weren't even affected. Whether it's happening
in DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 3: Check out the watchdot on Wall Street podcast with Chris
Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: What else do we have here? What's a good segue? Well,
let's talk a little bit about I guess since we're
talking about Marylin and the DC area, Boy, that's a stretch.
But let's talk about Christina Christine Room who was robbed
at a restaurant right in the middle of DC, like
right in the middle of where I walked by this
place near the Convention Center. If I have the right
restaurant the other day, like I've seen it a million times.
There's a million people around, and she was robbed. I
believe it was in the middle of the day, right
or am I wrong?
Speaker 2: I don't actually know about the timing or location, but
I do know that she was at dinner, that she's
under Secret Service protection, and that the purse that was
stolen was like on her, not physically on her, but
like on her chair or at her feet or something
like right next to her.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Capital Burgher is the name of the place. She
had three thousand in cash. I don't know who carries
around that much, but maybe government officials have more cash.
Speaker 2: Your business too, It's not Yeah.
Speaker 1: She shouldn't lose, could carry a million dollars and no
one should rob her, you know, people with a man
wearing a mask and ninety five minutes walked into the restaurant,
went upstairs, took it a right now. So I've noticed
this in New York and DC because I don't live
in those places anymore, but I occasionally visit that things
have gotten less safe feeling nothing's happened to me, but
just being in trained stations and like Union Station is
a shell of its former self? Am I wrong about this?
I just see things.
Speaker 2: It used to be a place with movie theaters and stores,
you know, tons of stores and.
Speaker 1: Tons of bookstore.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and now it's got you know, a very few stores,
a lot of homeless people. There have been some murders there.
It's not great.
Speaker 1: So I think that plays on people's feeling that there's
some kind of national decline. You know, you go to
the Capitol. I mean, it used to be terrible. I
remember in the eighties and even in the nineties. So
it's not like it was always great. It's probably just
been a short window where it's actually gotten much nicer.
It's still not a terrible still not like a hellscape.
I mean people talk about you know, you walk around,
it's a pretty nice city. But it definitely feels less
safe than it used to. And so when a cabinet
member can get mugged in a restaurant in that way,
things are not going well.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think there are a couple of issues here. One,
it's about crime in major cities, which has become a
problem not just in New York and DC, but in
all sorts of cities. And I think it would be
a great opportunity. You know, the Democrat Party has become
kind of the party of forcing kids to learn radical
transgender ideology and running cities into the ground. What if
they focused on doing something well. And since they control
every city in America and they don't just control it
by like narrowly winning elections, they're frequently getting ninety percent
support in cities. Sometimes there'll be a third party that
gets like, like, we're even more radical than Demo, Green
Party or something that gets a small percentage of support.
There is no Republican presence in American cities, just there isn't.
So what if Democrats said, Okay, the American people are
kind of rejecting us. We do control the media, but
the media are less important than they have been. What
if they focused on cleaning up American cities and showing
that they could govern those well like they already have
complete and utter domination and control. It would not be
hard to roll out some plans or even to test
some plans about how to restore American cities to their greatness.
Make American cities great again could be their motto, because
it's there is an issue here of just crime in DC,
and it is a problem, and it's been a problem
for a while. There's also the issue of our incompetent
Secret service. I mean, she was under Secret Service protection.
That masked man could have just as easily come into
the restaurant and shot her, you know. And to know
that there's no protection for even our top level cabinet
agencies departments, it's disconcerting and makes me worried about our
other cabinet level secretaries. And this is on the heels
of them having a really weird handling of the only
by the grace of God avoidance of the assassination of
President Trump at Butler, Pennsylvania not super covered in glory
with the situation in Florida of a gunman almost taking
Trump out, the guy who is like a Ukraine War supporter,
Ryan Routh. And we still don't have answers about that.
We're never going to get answers about Christy Nomes. You
know about this stuff. But it's really providential. It wasn't
much worse.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's always a little shocking when these people who
you think are super component are actually just normal. Right.
You want them, you want them to be better. I
want to go back to your your the things you
said about how the cities are in decline and how
good governance can help them. There's this weird disconnect in
big cities. I know this. You know in New York.
It's true where you where good governance doesn't actually get
you votes. It's like there are these special interests unions,
you know, academics, you know, activist group, socialist, activist groups
that you have to appease that gets you on a
ballot in a primary in like New York City. So
the people on city councils in d C And in
New York and elsewhere are the biggest wackadoos imaginable. They're
not you know, they're left of anything you can imagine.
They don't care about good governance at all. So this
is like when in the nineties it got so bad
that Giuliani could win, and he could only win incidentally
because of Staten Island, which is essentially kind of a
working class suburb at the time, I don't know anymore.
He brought good governance to New York and the city
benefited greatly. That's such a rarity. You see, the people
who are governor in New York and DC. DC had
a governor when I was a kid. It was a
crack at crack who got caught with a was it
a prostitute and doing crack and was convicted and still became.
Speaker 2: Barry here briefly. So, Yes, Marion Barry was arrested. He
was set up by the FBI. They made a person
purport to be a prostitute who seduced him and then
gave him crack cocaine, and then they arrested him for it.
And it was a total like an utter set up
to get him. And when I first moved to d C,
I think he was in prison at that time for
that crime. He famously said as he got arrested the baby,
and I was thinking how it was a perfect example
of how awful and corrupt DC was. Well, I lived
in DC for like fifteen years, including he got out
of prison and became mayor again, and I have totally
changed my view on him. I actually think that every
single mayor of d C in my lifetime has been corrupt,
or almost every single one. Every other mayor was helping
rich corporations like development companies, and Marion Barry was also corrupt,
but he was helping out the people in the poorest
Wards I'm not sure that's worse, and he was. There
was such an honesty to the game that he was playing.
I don't know. I just don't. I don't think he's
also he survived an assassination attempt from Islam as terrorist.
Speaker 1: No, I did not know that. I did. I should
have done more research on the Marion Barry story before
I brought him up. You know, he seems like a
guy who benefited from the kind of favor trading that
allows kind of, you know, Al Sharpton to be powerful,
you know what I mean. And I don't know enough
about what he did for the city, but it doesn't
seem to me like he did that much for the
poor people in DC, because it was a pretty bad
place for anyone who wasn't in Northwest for very very
many years until gentrification, which people get mad about, but
I think it lifts the lives of a lot of
people in general.
Speaker 2: I'm going to say that, yes, he was shot purportedly,
it was accidentally when a group that was a breakaway
from the Nation of Islam of Hanafi Muslims took hostages
and overran a DC government building. I want to see
in the sixties or seventies. I can't remember, and Marion
Barry was a city council member. He was nearly assassinated.
He was shot near the heart, and I thought it
was a Palestinian who did it, but maybe it was
just an American breakaway from the Nation of Islam.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, let's go. I have no good segue here.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about we were talking about the Supreme Court,
and I just wanted to also mention we had some
updates with the court happening on the sort of the
judicial coup of the of the second Trump administration. So
the first Trump administration, we saw the effort to thwart
it with a bureaucratic coup and with leaks from the bureaucracy,
and you know the Russia collusion hoax, which the FBI
kind of cooked up or quickly took over from Hillary Clinton.
And they did not succeed, although they really came pretty
close to succeeding and taking out President Trump and the
first administration. So the second administration, the Trump team now
is like, oh, we totally get how the administrative state works,
and we are going to be taking it on much
more vigorously. And a bunch of Democrat judges have been
just thwarting it at every turn. And there was a
case that happened this weekend where Justice Alito and Justice
Thomas dissented. It's I think it's possible there were more
people in the who didn't go along with the court,
but they were the two to do it by name.
And Justice Alito wrote a dissent from a decision made
by the Court which was about a group of people
who were slated for deportation. And we keep on being
told that the Supreme Court, it's not that these Justices
Amy Cony Barrett and John Roberts are bad. They just
really want to let things work their way through the
lower courts and they don't want they want to exhibit
a type of judicial restraint. And so that's what's going on. Well,
here you had a case that had not even come
close to cooking through the courts, where the Supreme Court
intervenes and they kind of invent things that would normally
take place through the lower courts. So they say there's
a putative class of people that we will put a
stay on their deportations when the lower court it's the
lower like the case hadn't even claimed that there was
a class of people. They were just doing it for
few of the individuals that were slated for deportation. And
did you read Justice Alito's.
Speaker 1: Dissent or No, I know, I was very busy last
few days, so I didn't take a deep eye on this.
Speaker 2: Just the very last end, the last sentence, he says,
in some literally in the middle of the night, the
Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the
lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the
opposing party. In other words, they never heard from the
Trump team before ruling on this within eight hours of
receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order,
and without providing any explanation for its order. I mean,
it's just that's Alito saying, y'all are smoking crack like
Marion Barry right now. And it's I mean, it's just
it's appalling how this Supreme Court cannot be trusted here.
They're just like, when it hurts Trump, they're like, we'll
just let it work through our way through the courts.
When it hurts Trump, they say, okay, we're going to
make it ruling right now to kind of thwart Trump.
And they don't realize, because I honestly don't think John
Roberts is that smart. I mean, he's clearly like not
an idiot, but he's when it comes to politics, he
might be the stupidest politician we've ever seen. He thinks
he's doing stuff to preserve the integrity of the court,
maybe or maybe it's like I don't even I cannot
even fathom what he thinks he's doing. But he's causing
people to lose trust in the judicial branch on a
major scale, and I'm worried about it. I'm really worried
about what John Roberts and some other weak justices are
doing to the country.
Speaker 1: I don't know enough to say what I think of
what happened there are from what's happened so far, with
all these judicial interventions, I think quite often they're obviously
part isan and ridiculous. Sometimes I don't think that, you know,
I can't. I don't want to go through Maybe we
go through them next week. I worry about the Alien
Enemies Act. I don't even know how it's constitutional, honestly,
to just it seems like there's just too much unilateral
power for the executive to do that. Branch to do that.
But I also understand that, let me put it this way,
the Democrats allowed broke the law and allowed this country
to be overrun by legal immigrants, some of them using
a shortcut to stay here in all ways, and they've
created this problem that can only it's very difficult to
fix and to go through all the due process that
you want, let's say, and to fix it, because it
just overwhelms the system. Right, So I understand why the
administration is doing it. Slightly worried about it because I
just don't feel like this is a you know, an
invading army. It is an invasion of a sort, but
it is not why that law was passed, you know.
It just seems like it's a misuse of that law.
That's you know, I don't have any deep legal reasoning
for this. This is just my sort of top topical
feeling on it, you know what I mean.
Speaker 2: Well, no, I'm going to think you already just said
the most important part. There was zero due process when
the regime. When the elites brought in willingly, whether it's
the Wall Street Journal or Joe Biden or whoever loved
having illegal immigration, nobody followed due process. Nobody followed rule
of law. They said, we don't care about the laws
that govern this country. We don't care about the people.
We don't care about how this affects average Americans who
have to pay for the illegals overrunning their schools or
their healthcare systems, or their you know, whatever is happening.
We do not care about these people. We want depressed
wages for the lower and lower middle classes, and so
we will bring in in complete violation and a rule
of law, all these people with zero due process, and
the moment you vote for someone who says they're going
to do something about it, then we will falsely claim
that we care about due process. We will falsely claim
we will lie through our teeth and say that we
care about rule of law, and we will do whatever
it takes to thwart the American people from having a
country that they voted for. And then they say they
have the audacity to say, you have to care about
the constitution and so there's nothing you can do. You
get four hundred years to deport these people, because that's
how long it will take. If starting today, we move
everybody through the system as fast as we can. There
are you happy that's what due process is. That's what
rule of law is. And I'm just like, screw you.
This is ridiculous, and I these people never for a
minute cared about rule of law. You know, when John
Eastman was getting disbarred and going through horrific legal trauma,
one of our greatest constitutional scholars, because he accurately, by
the way, talked about ways to oppose the results of
the twenty twenty election, as you know, certified by the states.
By the way, he was so right they had to
change the law because they were like conceding that he
was right. And his punishment for providing this legal this
legal advice was disbarment and arrest and all sorts of
horrible things. Did one of these people, left or right
speak out on behalf of him? Did one person who
the Free Press just featured as supposed constitutional scholars who
all agree that it's Trump that's the problem and everyone
else is just lovely. Did one of them speak out
on behalf of John Eastmith or any of the other
people whose lives were destroyed by people using and abusing
the courts to go after political enemies. And unless they did,
and they didn't, I don't want to hear a word they.
Speaker 1: Have to say, well, I understand what you're saying, and
but you know, those are separate issues. I agree that
their hypocrites and all of that. And I think there
are some people probably spoke after both, that have a
case to make that this is a compounding problem that
if we, you know, keep ignoring the norms and process
and so on. And again, it's not anything specific, and
we can talk about that another time. That you just
have anarchy and you just have presidents who come in,
do what they want, leave and the other president comes
in does what he wants. Congress doesn't do anything like
if we want to change, if we want to help,
if things were perfect and we really wanted to deal
with this problem in a way and help Donald Trump
deal with this problem, Congress should pass a law that
allowed him to do that. I'm not naive it's not
going to happen, you know, I don't know. I'd like
to throw my hands up. I mean, I don't know.
You have a good point. You know, when people break
the law and then all of a sudden they expect
you to, you know, be diligent and make sure everyone's
due process rights are met. It's a very difficult situation.
So I don't know what to say. I just feel
like things are, you know, and let's talk about it.
Let's talk about something else for a second, and then
we'll bring it back this because I have something else
to say. Let's talk about van Senator Chris van Holnk
going down to L Salvator. He's not the only one
bunch of congressmen went. They went. They did not go
to meet a democratic political dissident and bring them at home.
They went down to meet someone who is an alleged
was a MS thirteen gang banger, right, maybe a wife beater,
but also, without dispute, an illegal immigrant in this country
who had a deportation order against him. Right. So there's
a stark difference between arguing for due process domestically and
making someone like this a hero. And I think most
American people, I think it's completely tone dev and most
American people will be like, these are the kind of
people you want to bring back through this country who
are illegally here, Marilyn Man, you know, from El Salvador
or whatever. So I think Democrats are approaching like they
don't really care about due process. They spent a decade
destroying separation of power abusing executive of power. So they're
not credible on this, and the way they approach it
tells me that they're even less credible than people might
think there is you.
Speaker 2: Know, Elon Musk was talking about this during the last
election when he was addressing the topic of illegal immigration.
I think now most people realize this, but congressional districts
are allocated not according to the number of American citizens
in a place, but just the number of people. It
is one of the ways, like one of the reasons
why Congress can't pass a law against illegal immigration is
because illegal immigrants are a major constituency for the Democrat Party.
They're a massive constituency. They're the reason why Democrats have
probably like fifteen to twenty five seats that they wouldn't
have if you didn't count illegals as part of the
census for allocation of congressional districts. So, in a sense,
Chris van Holland does view the wife abusing illegal immigrant
gangbanger as one of his key constituents because he is like,
I'm not saying for the Senate, you know, for the Senate,
but for the Democrat control of whatever seats it has
in the House. It's huge.
Speaker 1: Well, I should mention separately as well, that we're just
talking about what it's hard not to think that Democrats
are purposely overwhelmed the system with illegal immigrants, you know,
not just that it was incompetence or whatever because Donald
Trump without it. You remember, it was less than a
year ago that Democrats and some Republicans tried to pass
some kind of immigration border bill and then you know,
supposedly Donald Trump called people and they didn't vote for it,
and Democrats tried to blame Republicans for not shutting down
the border. Donald Trump has has been effectively shut down
that border, and within a few months in March, I
believe it was like ninety five percent below border crossings
from the year you know before, so a huge drop.
So obviously can be done. And obviously he's done it,
and I think a lot of American people are going
to be very happy about that. So let's talk about
you know, so obviously it can be done. Secondly, this
thing where it's like virtually you know, the Maryland Man thing,
where every outlet calls Garcia a Maryland Man even though
he's an illegal immigrant from El Salvador. They make no
real distinction between illegal immigration and regular immigration. And you know,
it's clear in the way that they're eating Garcia and
others like him so Venezuelan gangbangers. Now, I'm not saying
we should just throw someone into an El Salvador in prison.
I think it's inhumane to do that to an innocent person.
I don't know if Garcia is innocent or not, but
that's a different argument than what they're making. I don't know.
I guess I just want to say that I am
not like Democrats who think who protect the man and
not the ideal? I guess is what I'm saying in
this argument, and I think it's I think it's going
to be devastating for them politically. It's like, ma, you know,
the Kilmar Garcia is their hero, Mahmud Khalil is their hero.
You know, Like, what are they even doing? Like what
are they doing?
Speaker 2: I mean, I do think that Trump and the Republicans
frequently benefit from the both parties benefit from the idiocy
of their opponents. But like, I don't know much about
life or politics, but when you've just had a shellacking
in a presidential election, when you had every single advantage
known to me, in kind, and you lost, and you
lost even the popular vote, which Democrats have such a
huge advantage on winning, you know, even if they don't
win the electoral college vote, the one that matters. You
would think that you would. And one of the major
issues was illegal immigration and the violence caused by illegal immigrants,
the murders, the human trafficking, like all the problems on
the system, that you would not make your main effort
against Trump to be defending the people who do those things.
Speaker 1: I mean these people. What was I'm sorry I forgot
her name. I think it's Rachel Moran. Was the name
of the woman who was murdered by an El Salvadorian
like twenty twenty three and illegal. Van Holland did mention her.
He doesn't talk about the Americans held hostage by Hamas
or the Americans held hostage by Venezuelans like so kill
mar Garcia is the most important person for him, not
American citizens who suffer because of the lawlessness.
Speaker 2: You know, Rachel morn however you say her name she was.
She was a Maryland woman, yeah, a legal citizen. And
Chris van Holland I don't think ever talked to her
family or cared or mentioned your name or like did
anything about it.
Speaker 1: So can I just say this, as far as you said,
you know, legal immigration depresses salaries and so forth, I
think that's somewhat debatable. But let me just say this.
It's bad for illegal immigrants to not have the law
on their side, for instance, where people like kilmar Garcia
maybe will abuse them and they have no place to
go where This is just inhumane. The entire situation of
people traveling through the desert coming in here, you know how,
living in the shadows. I know that we don't have
much A lot of people are angry about it. They
don't have much compassion for these people. I have compassion
for them, but I think that it's wrong to incentivize
them to come here and then to live these kinds
of lives. We have to have an orderly way to
do that. And I've made this argument quite often that
the more we allow this kind of lawlessness to go
on with immigration and illegal immigration, the more American people
are going to turn against regular immigration, which I think
is a good thing. And you know, I think democrats
hurt the cause and it's in you know, so you know,
I just I don't understand what they're doing with this.
I think Corey it's his name, Booker is going down
there as well, so that should be great for Oh yeah,
so think about this, right, So the Democrats got shellacked, right,
I think it's because they are abnormal. They are obsessed
with things that don't matter to most people, or are
the wrong side of things that matter, people having biological
men playing in women's sports. Like all their issues are stupid.
So who do they turn to? David Hogg, the anti
gun fanatic, is now with the DNC or whatever. It's
AOC raising the most money. It's her and Sanders touring
the country with two big, giant crowds. You know what
I mean, it's going. It's kilmar Garcia, it's Mahmud Khalil.
I just don't understand how they think they're going. Like
Trump had this tariff rollout, maybe we disagree on it.
I think it was a disastrously rolled out and they
couldn't even take any advantage of that at all. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I actually find that kind of confusing because all of
their interests. I mean, first of all, that would be
a more politically popular line of attack for them. Right.
Polling shows that Americans are skeptical of Trump's tariff strategy.
They are completely controlled by all the corporations, so their
actual money to interests would love for them to be
talking and fighting the tariffs. And I don't understand what
they're doing. I don't know. I just don't get it.
Speaker 1: But there, I mean, all of them are four tariffs.
They like economic status control, and Bernie Sanders loves tariffs.
Elizabeth Warren loves tariffs. It's very difficult for to make
an argument against some thing that they've supported consistently for
twenty years.
Speaker 2: I don't know. It's not the nineteen eighties anymore. And
the big corporations are all with the Democrats.
Speaker 1: So you keep saying that like a lot of big
corporations love tariffs. I mean it helps them secure markets.
They don't have to compete a bent against Japanese companies
or Chinese companies or whoever. I mean. I think it's
a far more complicated issue anyway. I don't get into
the tariff thing again. Let's talk about this again, no
segue at all. Bill Owens is the name of like
the show runner for I like to call the show
runner for sixty minutes. I don't know much about him.
He's been there a while, but he quit now he
says he's lost control journalistic control. They're one of the worst.
I mean they were once when I was a kid,
they were legendary. Like you watched sixty Minutes, you trusted
what they told you. They had all kinds of interesting
journalistic efforts that But lately, I mean they've been I
think one of the worst, most activist leftist you know
shows going. Why did he quit him? What do you think?
What do you think it means? Like, what's happening?
Speaker 2: I don't actually understand why he quit. He said it
was somehow related to Trump suing them or something. Actually,
do you know what the lawsuit is for?
Speaker 1: It isn't it had to do with Kamala Harris's interview
where they want the full they want CBS I think
to release the full. Does it have to do with
that suit, because I think they gave in on that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Okay, so Trump is suing them over their interview
with Kamala Harris, and I first of all think that's
a very interesting situation that happened during the middle of
the campaign. So, as you noted, sixty Minutes used to
be known as something of a news breaking show. They
were even they even had like a positive reputation among
the American people for news. They would, you know, they
were the ones that would say like, oh, here's a
massive problem with airbags and cars or you know whatever.
I don't know what the things.
Speaker 1: It would be like the television equivalent of a Time
magazine or a magazine show kind of you know what
I mean. I would say, yeah, but they.
Speaker 2: Would break news. They would expose corporate malfeasance. You know,
it was like a real thing. Now. They were always biased,
but the bias became untenable at some point. And I
always think of the interview they did. I think of
an interview that they did with Donald Trump, and then
I think of what they did to Ron DeSantis. So
with Donald Trump, you had Leslie Stall claiming that the
story about Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation and they
weren't allowed to talk about it because at sixty minutes
they cared about the facts. So she's like fighting with
Donald Trump, just yelling at him, just screaming at him,
just being like crazy with him, and he releases the
video of it, and she seems to think it makes
her look good. She's just being like a ranged partisan
activists with no grasp of reality. And because of how
horrific that interview went in twenty twenty, Trump just didn't
even bother doing an interview with them. In twenty twenty four.
There was also the situation where they just where they
were worried that the front runner for the Republican nomination
in twenty twenty four was Ron DeSantis, So they started
going to war against Ron de Santis. Do you remember
this where they claimed that he had engaged in nefarious
activity because he was allowing what's that big grocery chain
down in Florida. It's like publics or.
Speaker 1: Something, publics.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, so he was rewarding a donor by having
them distribute the vaccine shot and instead it turned out
that it was just publics that they give to all
politicians that they're also the most efficient means by which
to distribute the COVID vaccine.
Speaker 1: Well, even in Florida, Democrats were like, are you insane?
Like Pupebubly, everyone loves public, so everyone goes to public.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I remember it hit that very effective press
person that Ron DeSantis has, Christina Pouchchaw, that she kind
of like went to war with them over that, and
she was totally right. Well, then you hit twenty twenty
four and they do an interview with Kamala Harris, who's
nobody's idea of a particularly smart lady, right, and they
edited they just did like a really gentle edit of
her where they not gentle, I mean they did a
really intense edit of her interview so that she seemed
much more competent. So they kind of did the opposite
of what they did with Donald Trump in twenty twenty.
They asked very easy questions. When she would ramble with
her typical word salad, they would turn it into just
like the most beautiful, coherent answer through deceptive editing, and
just like nip and tuck here, nip and tuck there,
take out the two minute prelude that made no sense.
So how you edit an interview is one of the
most malicious ways that our corporate media are engaged in
bias and deception. So if you're a Republican, they take
the worst part of your answer, they make it seem
like you're stuttering or do you remember when who's that
Katie or Katie Couric where she deceptively edited in silence
to make it seem like she'd stumped some Second Amendment supporters.
That was just a complete deception.
Speaker 1: And the guy, if he had not recorded it, we
wouldn't have known that that happened.
Speaker 2: Yes, so the Kamala Harris edit, you know, they did
end up releasing the whole video and people were like, oh, well,
technically the answers that were given were in response to
the questions that were given. It's like, yeah, by doing
the most generous, lovely edit of a person ever known
to mankind. Interestingly, I have heard from some folks with
knowledge that in do you remember in twenty twenty three,
the same week that Robert her interviewed Biden and found
him incompetent, he did an interview with sixty minutes and
they released that video and it was apparently another monster edit,
just like the Kamala Harris one. They kind of give
an introduction at the beginning where they're like, it had
been a rough week on President Biden, and when he's tired,
he sometimes stutters. Remember how that was the answer for uttering? Yeah, yeah,
So they kind of explain he's not at his top form.
But it's all for totally understandable reasons because you know,
it was a rough week with the Robert her you
know stuff. And it's just another point to mention when
a Republican is interviewed by sixty Minutes or another deceitful
propaganda publication or media outlet, they never get the generosity
of saying okay. So it turns out that Democrats had
engaged in lawfair against this person to the point that
any other human in history would have broken. But he's
keeping a positive attitude. But he's like a little testy
with us. Like nobody ever says anything like that with
Donald Trump. Nobody ever explains or provides context that helps
them look better. In fact, they usually add context that
makes them look worse anyway. So yes, Bill Owens departs
and says that he feels like journalistically constrained because because
people are on top, because his corporate overloads are on
top of him because of the lawsuit. I think the
corporate overlords are on top of him because of the lawsuit,
because they could cause the entire enterprise to come crashing
down through their propaganda, and so they're probably being like, hey,
are you sure you wanted to run this Democrat propaganda again?
Bill Owens, and he views that as a loss of
his journalistic freedom because for him, journalism is the complete
regurgitation and recitation of Democrat talking points.
Speaker 1: I'm slightly confused by the lawsuit, though, What right does
the government to say, have to say or sue you.
Actually it's a civil suit, but you know, to say
you can't be biased, or you must give us this
whole interview, or I mean, I think their reputational their
reputation will be destroyed anyway, so no one will trust
CBS News. I think that's punishment enough. But I just
don't understand what are we going to do now, sue
every time we think someone has a poorly unless they're
misrepresenting someone and just you know, hurting their earnings, potential
or whatever. Just it seems like a weird suit to me.
Speaker 2: So there are Since you care so much about rule
of law, I know you care so deeply about the
fact that there are regulations and laws governing the news
handling of elections and campaigns, and our corporate media have
engaged in billions of dollars of inkind contributions to the
Democrat Party and that is a violation of some of
these laws and regulations governing fair treatment equal to public
airwaves or balance. Yeah, on the airwaves that they are
granted from the FCC. So yeah, but I'm not sure
I support those laws myself.
Speaker 1: It just seems so yeah, it just seems ripe for
abuse in some way.
Speaker 2: You know, again, David, you have a country where people
are saying, we're sick of the way the regime is
handling things, this importation of illegal immigrants, the pushing of
radical ideology on our children. But because of these gifts
that they have through the administrative state, for instance, the
ability to control every major media outlet to their ends
and to give again billions of dollars of in kind contributions.
It's not just on the campaigns and elections themselves. It's
about all the issues supporting the campaigns and elections, like
the idea that we ever treated the lie that men
can become women if they have a sexual fetish that
makes them want to become women. That's insane, and yet
our corporate media pushed it with the most beautiful language
to make it seem like you were a monster if
you disagreed with it, and they were so effective that
they got Neil Gorsich to go along with it at
the Supreme Court in the Bostock ruling, where he says
the Civil Rights Act actually protects gender ideology, which is
such a delusional, embarrassing mistake from an otherwise pretty great justice.
Our media deceive through every word choice they make, and
there's the amount of control that they have given to
the Democrat Party to ruin people's lives as a result
of this, Like, you can't fight back, you can't pass
laws in Congress because of all of these unfair advantages
that they have been through elite control of our institutions,
and you have to fight back some way.
Speaker 1: We have to fight back some way. I just, you know,
and I agree with everything you said, so you know,
I've been writing about it for years. I just I
don't want the state to do it. I want to
somehow get the state out of it, to make them
stand on their own two feet, you know. So I
guess the last topic we we talked about talking about
was RFK Junior promise to institute some bands of completely
harmless food dies because he thinks everything is environmental in
the world. And I saw Nancy Mace, you know, because
everyone is just in this. I don't know they're just demagogues,
I guess. But she is out there saying, let's get
chemicals out of all our foods. Does do people realize
that if we did that, we would have no shelf
stable foods and that everything would rot on your shelves,
like we have this ref lex of anti chemical you know, angst.
I guess you'd call it, which is so overblown. It's
usually been a left wing thing, but now, obviously with
Rfkid Junior, it's become a right wing thing. So I
don't know. What do you have to say about it?
How do you feel?
Speaker 2: Oh, it's weird.
Speaker 1: We argued about this before, but now we're on air, you.
Speaker 2: Can argue, well, I don't remember arguing with you.
Speaker 1: About it, but lightly, slightly, I.
Speaker 2: Don't agree that concern about the food supply is a
left wing concern. I do, or sorry I should say,
I know that it has been a left wing concern,
but the people in my life who are right wing
have also always been concerned about it. I remember my godmother,
who grew up on like a farm in North Dakota,
South Dakota. She would hate if I didn't know the
answer to this. Actually, she used to talk about the
importance of having food and food and produce that were
locally obtained, and how she felt like that was a
much better way to health than to have things imported
from far away with tons of pesticides, and a lot
of the way that wheat was grown that was so
resistant to pesticides was actually like not great for the
human body. And she's total right winger. And I just
remember that being a big issue in Colorado as well,
where I grew up, where people cared about genetic modification, pesticides,
locally grown produce, and so it's always had a weird
mixture of people. And then I think most notably you
have it in the twenty twenty four election where the neocons,
led by Liz Cheney move openly to the Democrat Party
and the Democrats make that's you know, we're talking about
all the wise decisions made by Democrats recently, but that's
their closing argument is if you vote for Kamala Harris,
you will get Liz Cheney foreign policy. And they think
that's going to be very persuasive. And then meanwhile, Donald Trump,
through RFK, brings in this Maha wing that is massive,
like a massive in terms of building a constituency group
of people that helps ensure the winning of you know,
tons of votes in states that matter, and just also
like a general mood shift in the country. And so
I think a lot of parents are concerned. They look
at the weight of people, you know, they look at
the health of their children, and they compare it to
what they had growing up, or what their parents had
growing up, and they recognize that with all of the
wealth and abundance of food and all the lack of
want that we have, all of which are really beautiful things,
that there are some downsides to the food supply that
make people wonder, you know, like do we need all
these chemicals? And these food dies are not adding to
the taste of the product, not adding to They're not
adding any nutritional value, and they have been linked to
you know, they are percinogens that if you have enough
of them, if you're a small person, can cause problems.
And so I don't really I don't really have a
problem with removing them, and I in fact wish that
we would all move to like a healthier food supply
and more local growth.
Speaker 1: Well, you said so much that upset me. I don't
even know where to start. So I don't want to
get into a big argument about this right.
Speaker 2: Now, because you're supposed to get in a fight.
Speaker 1: I know. I mean the very idea that, first of all,
I reject the idea that he brought in this big,
massive amount of people. I think Donald Trump wins every
single state he won without our fk this idea that
there is no evidence that there's some big contingency that
cares so much about dies in our cereal that they
would have voted for Democrats otherwise, or stayed home and
not voted for Donald Trump. I don't see that in
any kind of pulling anywhere. I mean, it feels good
to say, but I just don't buy it. Now. I'm
not going to say that people don't many conservatives or
sort of newer type conservatives or populists don't romanticize what
food was when they were growing up and so on.
But there's also no evidence. Let me tell you this.
You know why a lot of people are fat and
these days is because they eat a lot that they
shouldn't eat, and parents have responsibility not to feed their
kids junk. The chemicals you might not like them, are
not the reason. Sugar. There's a lot more evidence that
sugar is worse for your child and worse for your
health than any die that's going to be banned, You
know what I mean? These are just kind of distractions
from a guy who thinks every chemical is going to
kill you. His autism stuff last week, I don't know
if we talked about it where he said he's going
to figure out we're going to figure out what causes
autism by September, as if no one has ever looked
into this ever, like there aren't forty men your studies
looking into this is and preemptively saying that it's going
to be an environmental cause, which he does not know,
which is anti science to say because we don't know
if it's genetic. There is actually evidence that autism starts
in the womb and could be genetic. It's just, you know,
just folds and into the rest of his complete wackery.
And I am no cabinet person upsets me more. In government,
he normalizes the most nonsensical things, and watching everyone jump
on board like there are cereals with dies they're making
our kids unhealthy is just nonsense. What's making your kids
unhealthy is a sugar level in that cereal, and you
have a million choices. You don't have to buy those cereals.
Like you're saying, oh, we should do this and we
should do that. That seems very nanistic to me. What
do you mean we should do that? You can do
whatever you want, and I can do whatever I want.
We have a lot of choices in this country. Want
to buy organic, you want to buy locally sourced, all
of that's available to you already.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I don't disagree with that. Actually, I wish people
would just make different decisions.
Speaker 1: I am going to make you anyone healthy again. You
have to make yourself healthy. There's no other way to
do it.
Speaker 2: Well, I think there's also you can you can idealize
the ease with which that happens, and the difficulty.
Speaker 1: I have kids. It's not I'm not idealized. It's really hard.
It's really hard to go in the supermarket where you
have cupcakes and cakes and even the crackers will have
sugar in them, like and it's just like this cornicle.
It's it's we have everything. I think our problem is
we're too wealthy, right, we have too much?
Speaker 2: My gosh, that's what you always get mad at people
saying what they're really upset about they want us to
be poorer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that there are people who want us
to be poorer. I don't mean that. Again, I don't
mean that like I want to punish the populace. I
think they think we have too many choices in the world.
Speaker 2: I have something that is embarrassing that I just am
going to admit that I feel it, which is for
a really long time. Okay. So I had this libertarian
background where I cared about religious liberty more than anything,
and there were all these libertarians who cared about like
transsexual fetishes or prostitution or drug use, and I didn't
love their moral choices, but I kind of thought this
was the ship I was on, and if I defended
drug legalization, that when push came to shop, they would
defend religious liberty, right, Yeah, And that it was all
part of this like coherent philosophy. And then the big
battles over RIFRA happened in twenty thirteen and twenty fourteen,
and thus began my disillusion with libertarians. I realized they
were nowhere to be found. They were complete and utter
losers who in fact did nothing to support regious liberty
or I remember when the Brendan Iike situation happened, and
they were nowhere to be found in speaking out against
what was happening to him over his support of marriage
as defined as a union of one man and one woman.
And so that was kind of a dissolution that I had.
There was also this like conservative establishment in Washington, DC
that I was also loosely affiliated with or like it
was part of the Republican Party and had to kind
of vote with this ship of people that would generally
protect your interests. And so one of the big things
guiding that ship was large corporations and big business, and
the idea was if you protect them from any regulation,
then they're part of your coalition in a way that matters.
And it turns out corporations, large corporations gave one hundred
billion dollars to the Marxist BLM movement, one hundred billion
dollars in reps to a movement that teaches race hatred,
and they were unable to fight anything. They were the
entities that were pushing against religious liberty with the Riffra
battles of twenty thirteen and twenty fourteen, and the idea
that I'm going to care that it's going to cost
them some money to remove red dye, or that there
will be problems with their ability to market sugary cereals
if they don't have the same color. I just don't care.
I have to imagine you hate what I just said.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, you's so much I should be taking notes. So,
first of all, big businesses love regulations that helps them
keep out small businesses. And this idea, first of all,
that we have some kind of unfettered capitalism going on
is mind boggling to me. It is simply not true.
And I don't think there's anything this corporatism. The bigger
the government you have, the more of it you have,
the more cronyism you have. I think that these people,
the Republicans you're talking about, failed us because they didn't
shrink government enough so that corporations should be on their own,
not that they you know, that they helped big business
in a good way, or you know, there's a difference
between big business and capitalism. But anyway, I think it's
a false choice. Staff to choose between saying, oh, who
cares what happens to corporations? And you know, corporations are wonderful,
but this thing with libertarianism. I agree with you libertarians themselves,
and I'm sometimes called a libertarian, though I never really
was a libertarian because to me, I just think my
position is that we should enhance freedom for individuals. It's
not technically a libertarian thing, it's it's an American ideal.
One of the first things I wrote for the Federalists,
I think it was, was a long piece called in
Defense of Libertarian judgmentalism, meaning you can defend a freedom
and say what people are doing is wrong. I think
a lot of the DC type of libertarians are probably
talking about don't do that. They won't. They are not
just libertarians, they're libertines. They don't care about those sort
of moral stuff that goes on. But when you say,
when people say, oh, they call anything that is not
statist libertarian these days, right, they have no limiting principles.
Once you say that, what are your limiting principles for
how government can interject? I don't care about food dies,
take food dies out, make everything purple and gray. I
don't really care. But I do care that a cabinet
official can you unilaterally just tell the entire you know, industry, Hey,
you can't use this anymore, even though there's piddling evidence
that it actually does and has any bad effects on people.
It's just his nonsense and that he's convinced a bunch
of people to care about. What stops him from from
banning sugar? What stops him from telling us that we
can't put preservatives in our foods and that we have
to change all our supply chains what?
Speaker 2: I kind of think those would be better things than
removing the dyes. Care about the health of the people.
Dramatic restrictions on the amount of sugar would probably be
a better idea. And I also think removing all of
those preservatives the ingredient list that makes no sense to
you because you can't understand it. I actually would be
all for that too, more than I would be for
removing food dies.
Speaker 1: Go buy that stuff now, make your all cereal. I mean, know,
what's stopping you from having a world where you don't
have those chemicals just because you want them to make
you know, whatever cereal you enjoy in a different way,
that's a different that's not the same thing. How do
you think we find ship food to to How do
you think we feed three hundred and fifty million people
how do you think we need preservative? Yeah, no, we
need industrialized farming or we're going to starve or all
going to be subsistence farmers and dirt farms.
Speaker 2: Well, do you feel starvation is like really a super
big risk right now for the American people?
Speaker 1: Not at all, Not at all, because we have we
have very very effective, productive means of making food, and
we have a million choices. I just I feel like
no one ever says and obviously you would lose an
election immediately if you said this. You know, you're overweight
because he eat too much. It's your responsibility not to eat.
I can't make you healthy. You know, it's your responsibility
that you're not working. It's your responsibility that you're this
or that. Like, not always, but quite often.
Speaker 2: What was that movie with Halle Berry where the politician
says stuff honestly and Bullworth bullworthy, you can make it?
Speaker 1: No, Yeah, no one's you know, everyone wants to blame
the Wall Street Robert Baron for everything that's happening in
their lives. I'm sorry it doesn't work that way. And
I'm not saying that they're perfect then that we shouldn't
be critical of things they do. Sometimes But this idea
now that both parties have, I think, is that we're
just blaming other people for our problems all the time.
Speaker 2: I just had because I was ranting about the one
hundred billion dollars that corporations gave to race hustlers to
push racism in America, and I just want to say
one thing about that. All these corporations are realizing there's
been a vibe shift and that their work on behalf
of the Democrat Party not viewed so favorably by people
on the right, and so they keep on having meetings
with people on the right. They gave one hundred billion
dollars to BLM and its associated groups. So the associated
groups actually one of the big causes of BLM was transactivism,
so the money went there. You could pay your reparations
by supporting the Trevor Project, which supports the permanent sterilization
of children. And again one hundred billion dollars that we
know of, so it could even be much higher than that.
Then they like to meet with people on the right
and they say, so we've decided we kind of got
over our skis there. Okay, you set the dollar amount.
It was one hundred billion, dollars. What are you doing
to support groups on the right. Oh you thought just
saying that you had changed your mind would make people
on the right start caring about corporations. Show me the
freaking money.
Speaker 1: Do you know why corporations gave money to BLM because
the people in power were pro BLM and in their
mind they want to be associated and with people who
are in power, because the people in power are the
ones who help them. So let's disconnect those two instead.
Speaker 2: What the left is in power, you get a dollar,
right is in power, you get nothing.
Speaker 1: Because how about this, get your get your reparations, and
then after that we can do it. At some point,
we need to do that.
Speaker 2: I want one hundred million dollars minimum for causes on
the right.
Speaker 1: Okay, gold choice, they need a few bucks and a hat.
Give it to the right wing.
Speaker 2: Hunting for publications that were censored by your by your
previous regime.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's fine, but I'm saying, in the long run,
if you really want to change this, because someday democrats
going to be in power again, it was always.
Speaker 2: For not using corporate money too.
Speaker 1: But that's not the argument of a populist types. They
say we need to take over the institutions make them
work for us. I think that's because.
Speaker 2: Also though, because that one hundred billion dollars is about radical,
permanent change. The money means something. And so when you say, like, oh,
we were you know, we're going to take power and
then do nothing with the power, Yeah, it's a real
weak way to affect permanent change.
Speaker 1: I want to do stuff with the power. I want
to get government out of our lives. That's something too.
You guys keep pretending like everyone is spineless because they
don't want to just crush their enemies. I don't think
in the end you're going to be able to crush
your enemies using the state in that way, because someday
they're going to take over the state and then they're
going to try to crush you. They're probably going to
do it anyway.
Speaker 2: I get it, Oh, David, that infuriates me. They already did,
they already did the credit.
Speaker 1: No, they didn't. You're back in power. The establishment right
now is Donald Trump, and they didn't. It didn't work
for them. Law Air didn't work out for them. They're
still If you believe in the American system, you say,
you know what, in the end, we won, right, they
didn't stop Donald Trump from being president. BLM is dead,
you know, but not to the extent is like it is.
Almost virtually every email I got from every company they're
in two thousand and two thousand and one at the
bottom had some kind of like rainbow or BLM thing.
You don't see that anymore. They're not in power. I
don't think BLM has the kind of sway they had obviously.
Speaker 2: Not need to. They built all these programs inside corporations
to give themselves permanent power.
Speaker 1: And you don't think DEI programs are being destroyed as
we speak. I mean a lot of.
Speaker 2: I think they're being read sometimes.
Speaker 1: My point is that say.
Speaker 2: One thing really quickly. Because my neighbors, you know, who
are all supportive of the BLM craziness. They they put
up the signs that said ending racism starts here, with
a map to their house. So the whole point was
we accept and completely adopt BLM medeology that racism is
inherent to all white people, and so we are admitting
that we're racist, and if we want to stop racism,
we have to first admit that we're racist. It's been
five years since they put these signs up right, and
they some of them still have them, and I still,
to the annoyance of my children, you know, continue to
every time we drive past or walk past, point out
that those are racists who live there. But I was
saying recently, like, there's such bad racists that they've been
working on their racism for five years and they're just
as racist as when they started, or they're racist enough
to have a sign announcing that they're racists in their yard,
that they refresh these signs to say we're horrible racists
and we live here at such and such address. And
one of my kids that was saying, like, wouldn't it
be funny if they had signs that said like ending
murder starts here, like they were admitting that they were murderers.
Speaker 1: Anyway, you should put one up that says cured of
my I was cured of my racism, you know, like
it's over or never had it. But you know what
I mean, Yeah, it's I listen. But I think people
kind of today that's a small minority of people who
have signs like that. I think that that's kind of
looked at now as something passe.
Speaker 2: No. I think it's hilarious my neighbors are bitter clingers.
I love them, but they are bitter clingers. They're like
federal employees who support every trend, Like we got Ukrainian flags,
we got the racism science we have. Like one of
my neighbors and I actually love her, put out afresh
one of those signs, like in this house, we believe
in science over fiction, which I'm just as someone who
loves fiction. The way I understand that is we believe
in science over fiction. So we don't read literature and
we worship science. And we also are trands, you know,
like it doesn't even make sense in their own signage.
Speaker 1: Yeah, those signs are ridiculous.
Speaker 2: One other thing, Sorr, I'm just going to do a
call back to the RFK thing about autism. One thing
that bothered me is so I still haven't seen what
RFK actually said about autism. And you said it was
really bad and that he was talking about exterminating autistic
people or something that would be very bad.
Speaker 1: No, he didn't say he wants to exterminate them. He
does have the language of a eugenicist talking about doubt
syndrome or something, right, like he called it a holocaust
in the past, and now he called it a catastrophic
catastrophe or something like that. Now, obviously, for some parents
it's very difficult, and for some people it's very difficult,
but we have expanded the diagnosis. For most autistic people
can live their lives in a very normal way and
are fine. And this constant drumbee from him talking about
them like there's some kind of plague on society. I
think it's disgusting.
Speaker 2: Okay, So that's what I wanted to just mention really quickly,
is that I think that we are using the word
autists to describe such a widely divergent group of people
that it's ridiculous. There are people who are like good
with numbers, and we call them autistic. And then there
are people like one of my friends has a son
who is severely autistic, and he is nonverbal. He's he's bright,
but nonverbal and has not really control over his physicality. Sure,
and he you know, cannot really function outside of the house.
And then he's also a very strong boy. You know,
he's now in his early twenties. He's very strong. He's
stronger than she is. He can cause major destruction in
the house. There is no place for him to go
in the county in which she lives, there is no
place for him to go. In the state in which
she lives, there's she cannot work and take care of him.
And when people pooh pooh and say like, oh, my
son's autistic and he goes to Oxford and he's married
with children, it's like we're not talking about that. We're
not talking about that at all. We're talking about people
like the boy, the son of my friend, who's entire
our life is shaped by his condition and the inability
of any institution to care for him.
Speaker 1: You're talking about that, and that is I agree with
everything you said, and we should do more to help
those people. But RFK is entire case for how we
have an explosion of autism relies almost exclusively on expanding
the diagnosis. I'm not the psychiatrist. I think we over
diagnose people with these things because it makes and it
makes them feel like they're not normal or whatever. I
don't know that there is a normal, you know, for
a person of how we were supposed to think whatever.
I'm not an expert on that, but I am someone
who can look at numbers and knows that a most
for instance, most groups, most autism, you know, groups and stuff.
They think he's wrong. Most scientists think he's wrong. And
this idea that it's exploded has a lot to do
with diagnosis. And I think that actually it hurts the people.
You just hurts the boy you're just talking about. It's
like throwing people in, you know, it's like throwing people
in who have you know, certain kinds of cancers with
people who have easily curable cancers or whatever. You know,
we should be much more precise with how we talk
about these people or human beings. And I just think
RFK believes everything is environmental. Everything could be cured by
just you know, eating whole grains or whatever, and or
maybe not. I don't know. I think it's a problem.
Speaker 2: All right, let's wrap it up.
Speaker 1: Culture.
Speaker 2: What do you watch?
Speaker 1: I have watched a few things. I'll tell you quickly.
I watched a movie called The Order, on which I
was actually interested in watching. It's it's kind of the
story about these and usually when okay, so it's a
story about neo Nazis and kind of in Idaho and
in Washington State and the people who killed Alan Berg.
Do you know about that?
Speaker 2: The radio radio gun the.
Speaker 1: Radio Gun in Denver. Yeah, AOA, he was on and
Jude Law plays a FBI agent. And Nicholas Holt do
you know him?
Speaker 2: I like him?
Speaker 1: Yes, me too, He's excellent. He plays like the true
believer I call him now. Typically these movies are annoying
because of this. They will take the neo Nazi and
he will see all kinds of neo Nazi kind of stuff,
and then all of a sudden they'll say, and taxation
is theft or and or he'll see something very you know,
something conservative, so they'll like conflate a normal opinion of
a conservative with the Nazi opinion to make it look
like normal conservatives are kind of like Nazis. Anyway, they
don't do that here. It's beautifully shot. It does make
me laugh that there are two British actors playing these
roles of people in Idaho and so on. I just
don't know, maybe need tariffs on these actors or something,
but we need to have more American actors doing it.
I thought it was okay. I didn't love it. It
was kind of boring this, you know this. I just
expected more to happen.
Speaker 2: I wanted to see it, so I was hoping you
were going to say that it was great.
Speaker 1: It's not great in my estimation, but it isn't terrible.
It was it was okay to watch. It's brooding, you know,
it breathes, it takes the time, it's time, and everyone
is very sad in the movie.
Speaker 2: And I don't remember all that I've watched because I
was really sick, and I even had I had, I
was I was dealing with all sorts of things which
required me to do nothing but rest. So I've watched
so much stuff. Oh nice, I'm like, but I don't
even remember what all of it is.
Speaker 1: I usually feel like a loser. You're like, I have
one thing. I was busy, and I'm like, I have
twelve things I've watched this week?
Speaker 2: Was it was? Did we talk about this already, this
movie with Angelina Jolie.
Speaker 1: Yes, we talked about Burns. Remember I told you about
Ed Burns. Knowledge.
Speaker 2: I watched a movie based solely on who's that really
hot chick, the hot chick right now, the young girl
who's got the tiggle bitties.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna need more give you another clue at just.
Speaker 2: Pause for a second. I'm gonna ask my kid to
help me with all of my movie titles.
Speaker 1: Here do I have to pause?
Speaker 2: Hold up? Do you know what I'm talking about? Cyddy Sweeney?
She knew exactly who I was talking about. There's this
really awful Shakespearean adaptation. It was so bad. It was
Anyone but You, which is an adaptation of much Ado
about Nothing and has like a handsome guy Glendy All
in it, and then they're you know, so it was
almost unwatchable. Like if I hadn't been just recuperating, I
don't think I would have survived that. Then I started
watching a little bit of that TV show that you
called the Crying Show This is Us.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I liked that.
Speaker 2: Yeah. We had a Bell Kilmer night where we watched Tombstone.
I love Tombstone so much. I don't know why. I've
watched it so many times, and I could just watch
it like a thousand.
Speaker 1: More and I just want to say I'm your Hulkerberry
to everyone after watching right, yes.
Speaker 2: I really wouldn't watch it was like, that's such a
good one. And then we watched Real Genius, which I
had never seen. What, Yeah, I loved it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's great. I love that movie. That was maybe
his first movie. I think I think it was in
a movie called Top top Secret.
Speaker 2: I think Top Secret comes out before that. But I
just I loved I loved Real Genius. I thought it
was also very like appropriate for the moment about drone
strikes of people.
Speaker 1: You just love movies where, even though in real life
it's rarely so, where there's a genius, you know, someone
with this big brain who's also just a lot of
fun and normal, you know what I mean. It's usually
not the case, but a move, it's a good fictional
do like Heat. Did you ever watch Heat? Did you
like Heat about film?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Might need to watch that again. But we also
started watching The Apprentice, and I should have done this
in twenty sixteen. I have never seen I had never
seen an episode of The Apprentice. I knew it was
a big show, but I've always kind of disliked Donald Trump.
I don't like his style, and I just thought it
was going to be a stupid show. But one of
my kids and I started watching it and we were
oddly hooked by it. Had have you seen it?
Speaker 1: No, I've never watched an episode.
Speaker 2: David. I'm telling you as a journalist, it's your obligation
to watch it just to see what Trump is like,
what his appeal is, how he operates, the way he thinks.
It's it's a really great show. And then we've kept
watching it and we kind of got into it, and
we even went to Trump Tower this week to see
the site where it all happens. And then I was
also wondering which floor he was on when he came
down the Golden Escalete. I was trying to position because
multiple Golden Escalater floors. And sorry, I'm mixing my twenty
sixteen campaign launch with The Apprentice, But it's okay. And
then let me ask, has there been something else we've watched?
What was it?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 2: Yeah? And then we also have been watching Moonlighting, which
I saw everything like in the way that I saw
every single episode of Cheers, and I love Bruce Willis
in that and I just love his character.
Speaker 1: I've watched it. I didn't see them all. I mean
when I was young, it was on, and if I
you know, in the old days, when you didn't like
plan what you could watch and you couldn't binge watch,
you had to, Like, if I sat down and it
was on, I'd watch it. But you know that and
Remington Steel to me, are.
Speaker 2: Like, oh, I so loved Remington Steel. Yes, and Sybil
Shepherd is a lovely woman too.
Speaker 1: I'm so impressed that you watch so much. You know,
have you ever watched Celebrity Jeopardy? Yeah, if you want
to feel really smart, you watch Celebrity Jeopardy. I kill
at this thing, and there's one going on right now.
There's three people set standing there the other day and
they said, what was the famous river Julius Caesar crossed,
you know, and whatever? And none of them knew it,
and like questions like that they don't know, and I'm like, wow,
I just feel so much better than these people and
so educated. Second question I have for you is have
you ever heard of something called a pangolin?
Speaker 2: Pengl the That's what Anthony Fauci tried to blame his
COVID launch on.
Speaker 1: So yesterday was I was yesterday years old when I
first learned that this animal existed. And it's an anteater
with like scales. It looks like something like a dinosaur,
right kind of. It's so amazing. Anyway, I noted on
Twitter that I didn't know what they were, and everyone's like,
where were you in nineteen twenty, you know, And I'm like,
did I know? And just forget because it seems like
I do pay attention to the news quite you.
Speaker 2: Know, see did you know? So why are you bringing
up the penguin? There?
Speaker 1: So there's a there's a movie on Netflix. First of all,
they're freaking cool, right, like so interesting. But anyway, there
was a I watched the documentary last night on a
guy who So apparently these things are poached like crazy
because in China they think it has some kind of
magical ability or something.
Speaker 2: Right, sex like a sex stuff.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's always that, isn't it. It's always that, like
why are they getting the right why are they taking
the rhinoceroses you know ears? Oh yeah, they Chinese think
it helps them in bed. So it's like a it's
like an hour and a half documentary. It's amazing. Yeah,
great Netflix. Yeah, all right? Is that it?
Speaker 2: I can't remember what else I watched, but there was
a lot of bad stuff.
Speaker 1: So I will have a thing called a pen and
a pad, and you can every time you watch something
like I do, or even on your phone, this thing
called notebook and you open it and you just put
it on that's what I do, okay, because we need
you here. And also, by the way, if you have
like ten things, you can save a few and then
have them next week when you don't watch.
Speaker 2: That's what I do too.
Speaker 1: Okay, they are workings, will be You're wrong podcast. This
episode was unwildy wielding, unwielding all right, Well, that was great.
If you'd like to email the show, just a reminder,
you can email us at radio at the Federalist dot com.
We love to hear from you, and we'll talk to
you next week. Until then, be lovers of freedom and
anxious for the fray.
Speaker 2: Well minus too. Just watch on thew or I'll sit
on you.
Speaker 3: The word is out right because I'm the King of
fail